Chapter 3 - LOT publications

Chapter 3 

Pseudo-coordinative try and 

reduplicative coordination 

I have demonstrated that pseudo-coordination is a diverse phenomenon. However, 

there are two questions that spring to mind when confronted with the typology developed 

this far. The first question is whether or not there are other types of pseudocoordination 

in addition to ConCo and SceCo. The second question is whether there is 

any additional motivation for the existence of any particular pseudo-coordinative type 

like, say, ConCo. 

With respect to the first question, I will attempt to expand the proposed typology 

to include pseudo-coordinations with conative try. These exhibit interesting characteristics 

that distinguish them from the ConCo and SceCo constructions discussed in 

chapter (2). In the following chapter I will discuss these characteristics in order to 

place pseudo-coordinative try more accurately in the typology being developed. 

Concerning the second question, I will discuss data which have hitherto not been 

discussed under the rubric of pseudo-coordination. This new data is of a reduplicative 

nature. The properties of these will also be discussed because they are particularly 

interesting with respect to ConCo. In exploring these new data, the existing typology 

will be consolidated. 

3.1 The putative uniqueness of try 

We are now in a position to explore a less canonical example of pseudo-coordination, 

namely pseudo-coordination with conative try. 

(1) a. John will try and kiss Mary at the party tonight 

b. Who will John try and kiss at the party tonight? 

There are two main reasons why I would like to deal with conative try separately. 

Firstly, it seems different to other pseudo-coordinative structures in a number of respects. 

For instance, one immediate difference between structures with conative try

56 The putative uniqueness of try 

and other ConCo constructions is that conative try constructions can be paraphrased as 

infinitives. 1 In contrast, ConCo constructions can only be paraphrased with a purposeadjunct 

reading. 

(2) a. John will try and eat an apple [Conative try] 

b. John will try to eat an apple 

‘*John will try, in order to eat an apple’ 

(3) a. John will go and eat an apple [ConCo] 

b. John will go to eat an apple 

‘John will go, in order to eat an apple’ 

(4) a. John will sit and eat an apple [ConCo] 

b. John will sit to eat an apple 

‘John will sit, in order to eat an apple’ 

Secondly, despite their atypicality, examples with try have informed a number of 

studies (e.g. Carden and Pesetsky (1977)) adding to the confusion between ConCo and 

SceCo and leading to incorrect generalizations. For these reasons I consider it vitally 

important to establish the place of conative try in the typology I have developed. To 

this end, I will apply the tests developed in the first part of this chapter. I will show 

that conative try constructions differ from ConCo constructions with sit and go in most 

respects. 

3.1.1 Morphological conditions 

Another salient and curious difference between conative try and ConCo and SceCo 

is that it cannot tolerate any inflection (Carden and Pesetsky 1977, Schmerling 1975). 

Only the bare forms of the verbs can occur in this construction. The same is not true of 

other ConCo verbs like sit and go. 2 The following examples illustrate this with respect 

to bare verbs, present tense, past tense and participle morphology. 


b. John will go and eat an apple [ConCo] 

c. John will sit and eat an apple 

(6) a. *John tries and eats an apple [Conative try] 

b. John goes and eats an apple [ConCo] 

c. John sits and eats an apple 

1 This idea is expressed as far back as Gleitman (1965). 

2 Pullum (1990) notes that try and V constructions act like bare aspectual come and go (Jaeggli and 

Hyams 1993) in being subject to a morphological condition prohibiting inflection on these forms.

Pseudo-coordinative try and reduplicative coordination 57 

(7) a. *John tried and ate an apple [Conative try] 

b. John went and ate an apple [ConCo] 

c. John sat and ate an apple 

(8) a. *John has tried and eaten an apple [Conative try] 

b. John has gone and eaten an apple [ConCo] 

c. John has sat and eaten an apple 

(9) a. John and Mary try and eat apples [Conative try] 

b. John and Mary go and eat apples [ConCo] 

c. John and Mary sit and eat apples 

Thus conative try differs from SceCo and ConCo with respect to the morphology 

condition. Note that because try cannot be inflected, I will use either a plural subject 

or a modal verb in most of the examples in this chapter. 

3.1.2 Extraction 

It is possible to extract both arguments and adjuncts from conative try constructions. 

Thus conative try has properties identical to ConCo with respect to extraction (see 

section (2.1.1)). 

(10) Who do you think will try and kill the Pope? 

(11) Who will they try and kill? 

(12) How much will they try and pay the assassin? 

(13) How badly did they try and behave? 

3.1.3 XPs in the verbal string 

XPs cannot occur in Position B within the verbal string and somewhat marginally in 

Position C. This contrasts with the contiguous nature of ConCo (section (2.1.2)). 

(14) a. Bafana-Bafana tried and, in 2001, won the African cup 

b. *What do they try and, in 2001, win? 

(15) a. What do they carefully/regularly/never try and eat? 

b. *What do they try carefully/regularly/never and eat? 

c. What do they try and ?carefully/regularly/never eat?


3.1.4 Restrictions on subjects 

Conative try constructions seem to require an obligatorily sentient subject. Consequently, 

it is incompatible with the expletive subject of weather verbs and with nonsentient 

objects such as trees (unless one imputes consciousness to them). This makes 

try seem rather more like a SceCo verb (section 2.1.3). 

(16) John will try and become a pilot 

(17) *I wonder if it will try and rain today 

(18) *The acorn will try and become an oak 

3.1.5 Semantic bleaching 

There does not seem to be much semantic bleaching of try per se. For instance, there 

does not seem to be any significant semantic difference between pseudo-coordination 

with conative try and the corresponding infinitival construction. The following example 

is (2) repeated for convenience. 


b. John will try to eat an apple 

Moreover, conative try does not seem to exhibit bleaching independently of pseudocoordinative 

constructions; in fact, it is not at all clear to me what a ‘bleached’ semantics 

of try would correspond to. Given the lack of semantic bleaching, conative try 

seems quite similar to SceCo. 

Paradoxically, however, conative try contexts are intrinsically different from SceCo; 

SceCo implies a sequence of events, where the pseudo-coordinative verb denotes an 

event that sets the scene for the main activity to take place. Where conative try is used, 

however, the trying event must necessarily be cotemporaneous with the main activity. 

In this respect constructions with conative try are like ConCo constructions. 

3.1.6 VP deletion 

In VP deletion contexts with conative try, it is not necessary that try obligatorily be 

deleted with the rest of the VP. This sets try apart from ConCo constructions and 

makes it similar to a SceCo predicate (section (2.1.5)). 

(20) a. They will try to kill mosquitos and Mary will too 

→ ‘Mary will also try to kill mosquitos’ 

b. They will try and kill mosquitos and Mary will try too 

→ ‘Mary will also try to kill mosquitos’


3.1.7 Coordinator substitution 

The coordinator cannot be substituted by another in conative try constructions. This is 

a characteristic shared by all pseudo-coordinative structures (section 2.1.6) and indicates 

that conative try constructions are not a special case of OCo. 

(21) a. John will try and kill mosquitos 

b. *John will try or kill mosquitos 

3.1.8 Semantic subordination 

In conative try constructions, as for ConCo and SceCo, the activity denoted by the first 

predicate (try) is semantically subordinate to the main activity denoted by the lexical 

verb, in the sense of Na and Huck (1992). This is reflected in the fact that the conjuncts 

of a conative try construction cannot be reordered. This is a common property of all 

pseudo-coordinative constructions (section (2.1.7)). 

(22) a. John will try and kill mosquitos 

b. *John will kill and try mosquitos 

c. *John will kill mosquitos and try 

3.1.9 Distributivity 

Conative try constructions do not allow both modification. This shows that there is a 

semantic dependency between the verbs since the distributor requires to verbs denoting 

independent events (section (2.1.8)). This too shows that conative try constructions 

are not instances of OCo. 

(23) a. *John will both try and kill mosquitos 

b. *What will John both try and kill? 

3.1.10 Quantifier raising 

Conative try constructions allow quantifier raising, thereby yielding both wide and 

narrow scope readings. This is not surprising since conative try is not a selective island. 

This property is also common to ConCo constructions (section (2.1.9)). 

(24) A policeman will try and kiss every widow 

‘Some policeman will attempt to kiss every widow’ [NS] 

‘For every widow, some policeman or other will attempt to kiss her’ [WS]


3.1.11 Counter-expectational readings 

Instances of conative try do not seem to yield any particular counter-expectational 

readings. Thus (25) appears to be completely neutral in this regard. In this respect, 

conative try constructions pattern with SceCo (section (2.1.12)). 

(25) John will try and eat an apple 

3.1.12 Phonological cues 

The coordinator may reduce to syllabic [n " ] in ConCo constructions with try (Carden 

and Pesetsky 1977). WH extraction is used to force a pseudo-coordinative reading. 

(26) a. John will try and he will catch Harry 

b. John will try [@n] he will catch Harry 

c. *John will try [n " ] he will catch Harry 

(27) a. Who will John try and catch? 

b. Who will John try [@n] catch? 

c. Who will John try [n " ] catch? 

Once again, as I mentioned in section (2.1.13), these facts may have a phonetic 

explanation. Thus, until more is known, these facts should be treated cautiously. 

With respect to focus, constructions with pseudo-coordinative try behave slightly 

differently to other pseudo-coordinative constructions. It is indeed possible to focus 

the first verb, namely try. It remains impossible to focus the coordinator. 

(28) a. Why don’t you at least try and EAT something? 

b. Why don’t you at least TRY and eat something? 

c. *Why don’t you at least try AND eat something? 

3.1.13 Findings 

The findings of this section are summarized in table 3.1 on the facing page. 

Firstly, it is very clear that conative try constructions do not pattern with OCo but 

are a pseudo-coordinative structure of some sort. This is indicated by, among other 

things, extraction in non-ATB contexts, quantifier raising, the ban on XPs and subjects 

in the verbal string, coordinator substitution, the inability to change the order of the 

conjuncts and the incompatibility with distributors. 

Secondly, although conative try does have certain characteristics in common with 

ConCo (namely extraction of adjuncts and quantifiers and phonological reduction), 

other tests preclude the possibility that conative try constructions are ConCo structures. 

ConCo exhibits properties of constituenthood (partial VP-deletion test, XP-incluster 

test etc.), a fact exploited in my analysis in chapter (4). Since conative try

Property Section OCo SceCo try ConCo 

Syntactic tests 

Non-ATB argument extraction (3.1.2) No 

Non-ATB adjunct extraction (3.1.2) No No 

XPs in Position B (3.1.3) No No No 

XPs in Position C (3.1.3) (Some) Some (?) No 

Partial VP-ellipsis (3.1.6) No 

Coordinator substitution (3.1.7) No No No 

Semantic tests 

Subject restricted by Verb A (3.1.4) No 

Semantic bleaching of Verb A (3.1.5) No No No 

Semantic subordination (3.1.8) No 

Distributivity (3.1.9) No No No 

Wide-scope reading of quantifier (3.1.10) No No 

Restrictions on possible Verb A No 

Inherent counter-expectational reading (3.1.11) No No No (go) 

Morphological and Phonological tests 

Morphological Sameness (3.1.1) No N.A. 

Focus on Verb A (3.1.12) No (?) No 

Focus on coordinator (3.1.12) No (?) No No 

Table 3.1: Summary of tests including try 

Pseudo-coordinative try and reduplicative coordination 61

62 Reduplicative coordination constructions 

structures readily allow partial VP-deletion, they cannot form a constituent with the 

lexical predicate. Finally, whereas ConCo predicates exhibit semantic bleaching and 

do not affect the selectional relationship between the verb and the subject, conative 

try does not appear to be bleached at all and strongly selects for an animate, sentient 

subject. Thus, it cannot be analysed as a typical ConCo construction. 

Thirdly, there are important characteristics that make conative try quite similar 

to SceCo. I have already alluded to some of these. They include the lack of semantic 

bleaching, the selectional relationship between the verb and its subject and partial VPellipsis. 

On the other hand, the ability to extract adjuncts and quantifiers freely, not to 

mention the peculiar morphological constraints on the conative try construction make 

me reluctant to classify it as SceCo. These data lead me to conclude that conative 

try is yet another type of pseudo-coordination which is distinct from both SceCo and 

ConCo. 

At this point, we have identified at least four different types of verbal coordination: 

OCo, SceCo, ConCo and pseudo-coordinative try. These are schematized in figure 3.1. 

Figure 3.1: Pseudo-coordination, including try 

Coordination 

✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵ 

✥ ✥✥ 

❵ 

Ordinary Coordination Pseudo-coordination 

✘✘❳ 

❳❳❳ 

✘✘ ✘✘ 

❇ ❳❳ 

SceCo ConCo try 

✦ 

✦❛❛ 

✦ ❛ 

sit, go, come . . . 

3.2 Reduplicative coordination constructions 

At this point, having developed tests to distinguish ConCo from superficially similar 

constructions like SceCo, we are now in a position to explore another V and V construction 

which may shed some light on ConCo. With this in mind, let us step back 

from ConCo of the go, sit type and consider Reduplicative coordination (ReCo). 3 

(29) He begins reading about dinosaurs and tigers, and he reads and reads until the 

library closes 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030520-17.html (12.10.2004)) 

(30) My friend Jim Stoltz walks and walks and walks in the wilderness 

(http://www.walkinjim.com/wwbookart_book.html (14.10.2004)) 

(31) Starsky pulls his revolver from his shoulder holster and shoots and shoots at 

Huggy Bear (http://www.g21.net/cc14.html (01.07.2005)) 

3 It has also been called Augmentative conjunction Haspelmath (2005).


ReCo constructions typically reduplicate activity verbs, example (31) notwithstanding. 

4 However, example (31) does raise a pertinent question: does durativity license 

iterativity or vice versa. This question requires the sketching of the relationship 

between ReCo and pluractionality. 

There are many similarities between ReCo and pluractionality – so-called plural 

marking on verbs. Many languages have verbal affixes which are: 

frequently reduplicative, most often derivational rather than inflectional, 

and expressing a broad range of notions typically including action by 

more than one individual, temporally iterated action and spatially scattered 

action (Lasersohn 1995:238). 

Among the meanings associated with pluractionality are repetitiveness, repeated 

occasions or events, conation, persistent consequences, habitual agency, distributed 

quality, inchoativity, cumulative result, intensity, plurality of sites of action, duration, 

continuity, distribution, celerativity/retardativity, augmentation, diminution as 

well as perfectivity, causativity and plurality of subject or object noun phrases (Cusic 

1981:74–75). 

This enumeration of properties bears many similarities, not only with ReCo, but 

also with ConCo more generally. However, a central question is which of these readings 

is primary because the answer relates directly to the types of analyses that can be 

proposed. Whereas Cusic (1981) and others have regarded pluractionality as having 

a fundamental meaning of combining different events (i.e. iterativity), I want to approach 

ReCo in English from the opposite direction. I will regard it as coordinating, 

not discrete events, but substages of the same event. 5 From this basic meaning, the 

iterative readings more typical of pluractionality can be easily derived by the analysis 

I will propose. There are empirical reasons for this approach which are reviewed in 

the following section. 

3.2.1 Empirical reasons to favour durativity over iterativity 

To answer the question of whether ReCo constructions are primarily durative or iterative, 

consider the following minimal pair. 

(32) a. John looked up and looked up at the sky but never saw a comet 

4 ReCo can also occur with non-verbal material as the following examples show. Crucially, it is durative 

aspect that licenses reduplication in these contexts. They are discussed more fully in section (4.5). 

(1) The balloon went up and up 

(2) The plane flew around and around the airfield 

(3) Merlin slept for years and years 

(4) John slept (*about/*in/for) hours and hours 

(5) Eternity lasts for ever and ever 

5 Needless to say, I am not making a general claim about pluractionality in all languages. My claim 

holds for the ReCo constructions under discussion. However, whether the claim can be extended to other 

pluractional-marking languages is an interesting one, worthy of more exploration.


b. *John looked up and looked up from his work 

Examples (32a,b) are a minimal pair. Since the reduplicated predicates are syntactically 

identical, the grammaticality distinction between them must be derived from 

semantics and not from a purely syntactic explanation. Thus, it is the semantics of the 

constructions that license reduplication. 6 To look up from work is an activity that is 

easily repeated as demonstrated by example (33a), the particle predicate itself cannot 

be reduplicated (33b). 

(33) a. John looked up from his work repeatedly 

b. *John looked up and looked up from his work 

If ReCo were inherently iterative in its semantics, then examples like (33b) would 

be predicted to be grammatical. The fact that (33b) is ungrammatical shows that mere 

iterative potential is not sufficient to license reduplication. 

However, ReCo does have durative, atelicity as an inherent part of its semantics. 

For this reason it is only possible to reduplicate durative predicates. Thus look up at the 

sky (32a) can be construed duratively whereas look up from work (32b) cannot; only 

the former can be reduplicated. Thus, it is the ability to be interpreted duratively, rather 

than iteratively that is a good predictor of the grammaticality of ReCo constructions. 

This is not to say that iterative readings never occur in ReCo contexts; they do. 

However, an iterative reading is parasitic on durativity and can only be licensed in circumstances 

where a durative reading is pragmatically unlikely, as occurs with punctual 

events. In effect then, an iterative or serial reading is a strategy by which a punctual 

event can be construed as durative. For instance, in (34), the plurality of the subject 

licenses a serial reading, while the singular subject in (35) licenses an iterative reading. 

(34) The police shot and shot at the protesters 

(35) John shot and shot at the rabbit 

And yet there is still another reading associated with ReCo constructions: intensiveness. 

Whenever ReCo occurs it typically means not only that a particular activity 

is durative, but that it is done to a large, excessive or intensive degree. Thus the shoot 

and shoot examples above differ from ordinary progressives insofar as the former but 

not the latter imply that the shooting was somehow excessive. 

(36) The police shot and shot at the protesters 

(37) The police were shooting at the protesters 

6 This is supported by the fact that durative aspect licenses doubling of DPs more generally, whereas 

bounded events do not. 

(1) a. John read (the book) for days and days 

b. *John read the book in days and days


In summary, then, ReCo constructions have as primary meanings, durativity and 

intensiveness. The serial reading, when it exists, is parasitic on these two meanings. 

This gives us an explanation for why certain particle verbs can be reduplicated 

while others simply cannot. The following events, although potentially durative, simply 

cannot be carried out in an ‘intensive’ manner. 

(38) a. ??John climbed up and climbed up the mountain 

b. ??John climbed up the mountain intensively 

(39) a. *John went off and went off into the sunset 

b. *John went off intensively 

(40) a. *John put down and put down the book 

b. *John put down the book intensively 

(41) a. *John looked up and looked up from his work 

b. *John looked up from his work intensively 

(42) a. *John walked away and walked away 

b. *John walked away intensively 

In contrast, the activities denoted by the following particle verbs can be done in 

an ‘intensive’ manner and they can also be reduplicated. 

(43) a. I can’t believe it! Just because Mary was a professor, John just sucked up 

and sucked up and sucked up 

b. John sucked up intensively 

(44) a. John read up and read up for weeks on the lawsuit 

b. John read up intensively 

(45) a. ??John danced around and danced around until he was exhausted 

b. John danced around intensively 

(46) a. John looked up and looked up at the stars but never saw a comet 

b. John looked up at the stars intensively but never saw a comet 

There are also some particle verbs whose grammaticality in ReCo contexts increases 

markedly when an ‘intensive’ reading is given by the context. 

(47) a. ??John called up and called up Mary 

b. The stalker called up and called up Mary until she was a nervous wreck 

There is one apparent exception to this observation.


(48) a. ?I can’t believe it! The government just puts off and puts off making any 

decisions on the pension crisis 

b. *The government put off making the decision intensively 

A predicate like put off is punctual and thus not compatible with a durative reading. 

For this reason an iterative reading is licensed. However, an adverb like ‘intensively’ 

also cannot typically modify a non-durative predicate. Consider the following 

example with shoot. 

(49) *John shot the rabbit intensively 

This accounts for the ungrammaticality of (48b). Thus this example is not a counter 

example at all. 

To conclude, ReCo constructions denote durativity and intensiveness and consequently 

only predicates (including particle verbs) which are compatible with both durativity 

and intensiveness may be reduplicated. In some cases, where a punctual activity 

like shoot is involved, then a serial reading is parasitic on the durative readings. 

Having discussed some general properties of ReCo, it is now possible to place it 

in its pseudo-coordinative context by systematically applying the tests developed in 

chapter (2). In this chapter I will demonstrate that 

i. ReCo is a pseudo-coordinative structure, i.e. that ReCo is not OCo and 

ii. ReCo shares many properties of ConCo. 

Because ReCo has not been analysed as pseudo-coordination before, I will first 

focus on demonstrating that ReCo is not OCo. To this end, I will not necessarily retain 

the tests in the order in which they were introduced in chapter (2). Tests that indicate 

that ReCo is not an instance of OCo include the inability to substitute one coordinator 

with another, the incompatibility of ReCo and distributive markers like both, the fact 

that ReCo conforms to the Morphological Sameness Condition (99), the possibility 

of non-ATB extraction and quantifier raising, and also the inability of a subject (or 

indeed any XP) to occur in the second conjunct. 

Other tests show that ReCo patterns with ConCo. These tests include the absolute 

ban on XPs within the verbal string, the incompatibility of ReCo with partial VPdeletion, 

semantic bleaching, and the fact that ReCo constructions allow quantifier 

raising. 

3.2.2 Coordinator substitution 

A classic test for pseudo-coordination is whether or not the coordinator can be replaced 

by another (section (2.1.6)). Whereas OCo allows such substitution, pseudocoordination 

does not. The following examples can be compared with examples (29), 

(30) and (31). They demonstrate unequivocally that ReCo structures do not allow coordinator 

substitution and are thus indeed pseudo-coordinative structures.


(50) a. *He read or read or read in the library 

b. *My friend walked or walked or walked in the wilderness 

c. *He shot or shot at Huggy Bear 

3.2.3 Distributivity 

In OCo structures, distributive markers such as both can occur. This is not possible 

in pseudo-coordinative contexts (2.1.8). Both modification is also blocked in ReCo 

constructions, exactly like their SceCo and ConCo counterparts. Thus ReCo is not 

OCo. 

(51) a. John both reads and writes books 

b. *John both reads and reads all day long 

3.2.4 The ‘Sameness’ Condition 

Another important characteristic of pseudo-coordination is that each of the predicates 

is subject to the Morphological Sameness Condition (99) on page 46. This condition 

also applies to ReCo. This is illustrated in (52) for PAST and (53) for participle morphology. 

(52) a. John sang and sang 

b. *John sang and sings 

c. *John sings and sang 

(53) a. John has sung and sung 

b. *John has sung and sings 

c. *John will sing and have sung 7 

3.2.5 Extraction 

ReCo constructions can have arguments extracted from them. Thus, just like ConCo 

and SceCo, they constitute exceptions to the CSC. 

(54) a. Who was the guy who sang and sang all night? 

b. What was the song that John sang and sang all night? 

7 This example is ungrammatical on a ReCo reading, but is still grammatical on a OCo reading.


It should be noted that ReCo examples can sometimes be a little clumsy. For instance, 

while an objectless ReCo construction is perfectly grammatical its counterpart 

with a direct object is sometimes less well-formed, but not outright ungrammatical. 8 

(55) a. John read and read 

‘John read (a book) but didn’t finish it’ [Durative, unbounded] 

*‘John read a book twice’ [Bounded] 

b. John read and read a book 

%‘John read a book but didn’t finish it’ [Durative, unbounded] 

‘John read a book twice’ [Bounded] 

Often, but not always, a ReCo construction with a definite object has a natural 

interpretation as a bounded predicate. For some speakers, this is most naturally interpreted 

iteratively (see also Rothstein 2004). The effect is ameliorated somewhat with 

indefinite objects. The reason for this is that verbs and direct objects are together construed 

as telic. Thus, the use of an object (and by corollary the extraction of an object) 

is relatively marked. Nevertheless, extractions of objects are grammatical as shown by 

examples like (54). 

It might be suggested that (54) is merely ATB extraction: in other words the subject 

is coindexed with two extraction sites, one in each conjunct. This would reduce ReCo 

to OCo. As has been demonstrated in section (2.1.1), ATB extractions cannot occur 

from pseudo-coordinative constructions. Consider the following examples illustrating 

extraction of benefactives. 

(56) a. The peasant kept trying to pump and pump and pump a glass of water for 

the soldier 

b. What did the peasant keep trying to pump and pump and pump for the 

soldier? 

c. Who did the peasant keep trying to pump and pump and pump a glass of 

water for? 

d. *Who did the peasant keep trying to pump for and pump for and pump 

for a glass of water for? 

Imagine a context in which a troop of soldiers walk through a rural village. A 

soldier might ask a peasant to pump some water from the well in order to drink it. 

Example (56a) is the basic example. (56b,c) show that both the direct and beneficiary 

objects can be extracted, the latter optionally stranding the preposition. The stranding 

of the preposition in final position marks the extraction site and thus (56d) illustrates 

that ATB extraction is not possible. 

In conclusion, extraction of arguments from ReCo is possible without recourse to 

ATB movement. Such extractions constitute exceptions to the CSC and are indicative 

that ReCo is a pseudo-coordinative structure. 

8 Some speakers are able to distinguish a slightly clumsy durative reading, even with a definite, direct 

object. For other speakers, a direct object always implies boundedness of the predicate and thus immediately 

triggers a serial reading.


Adjunct extraction 

With respect to adjunct extraction, there are somewhat mixed results as a result of the 

semantics of ReCo. Although low, manner adjuncts can be extracted, occasionally the 

result is somewhat degraded, although still grammatical. 

(57) I know how well John can argue and argue 

(58) ?I wonder how quickly John worked and worked at his project? 

(59) ??I wonder how carefully John worked and worked at his project 

The explanation for this lies in the semantics of ReCo constructions: they encode 

a manner component indicating intensity of the activity. For this reason it is simply 

pleonastic and incongruous to ask, in the previous examples, how quickly, or how carefully 

the action was carried out. The very nature of the ReCo construction denotes that 

the arguing or working actions were done ‘intensively’ which could subsume speed 

and carefulness. In contrast, note that it is possible to extract low manner adjuncts 

which have nothing to do with ‘intensiveness’ (57). What this means, of course, is 

that extraction of low adjuncts is indeed possible, but is often blocked for independent 

reasons. 

In summary, extraction of higher adjuncts and arguments is possible. Thus, although 

ReCo constructions may appear to be selective islands (like SceCo), the cause 

of the islandhood does not seem to be necessarily related to whatever causes islandhood 

in SceCo. In ReCo, it seems to be an ‘intensiveness’, manner component which 

causes islandhood. The case is not as clear for SceCo, where the first verb sets the 

scene for the activity depicted in the second to take place. In other words, the first 

verb does not necessarily suggest a manner component in SceCo contexts. If this is 

true then the similarity with SceCo could be illusory. In short, the extraction facts 

argue that ReCo patterns with ConCo. 

3.2.6 Quantifier raising 

In the cases of ConCo and SceCo constructions, quantifier raising tests corroborated 

their status as non-islands and selective islands respectively (section (2.1.9)). Thus, 

wide-scope readings are freely available for ConCo but not for SceCo. Interestingly, 

quantifier raising tests suggest that ReCo contexts are not islands since wide scope 

readings are possible. 

(60) a. A policeman serenaded and serenaded everyi widow until theyi were all 

sick of his voice 

‘The same policeman serenaded each of the widows’ [NS] 

b. A policeman serenaded and serenaded everyi widow until shei was sick 

of his voice 

‘For each widow, there was some policeman or other 

who serenaded her’ [WS]


In (60a,b) the adjunct (until. . . ) has been added to assist in the interpretation. There 

is a tendency for definite direct objects to cause noise in the grammaticality judgements 

since the object interacts with aspect to create a telic interpretation which is 

not a possible interpretation of ReCo. Nevertheless, the availability of both wide and 

narrow-scope readings seems clear. The implication of this is that ReCo constructions 

allow LF raising of the quantifier without incurring a CSC violation. This shows 

(i) that ReCo constructions are not OCo and (ii) affirms their non-island status. In this 

respect ReCo constructions pattern with ConCo. 

3.2.7 XPs in the verbal string 

It has been demonstrated that ConCo constructions do not permit an XP to intervene 

inside the verbal string. This is also true of ReCo contexts. 

(61) a. John walked and walked across the desert for three days 

b. *John walked across the desert and walked for three days 

c. *John walked and across the desert walked for three days 

Adverbs cannot intervene in ReCo verbal strings. 

(62) a. John often/regularly/carefully/never ate and ate all day 

b. *John ate often/regularly/carefully/never and ate all day 

c. *John ate and often/regularly/carefully/never ate all day 

Example (62a) is an unmarked example where the adverb precedes both verbs in 

the ReCo verbal string. The strong ungrammaticality of (62b,c) on a ReCo reading 

clearly shows that adverbs cannot occur inside the verbal string. 9 

In summary, XPs cannot intervene within a ReCo verbal string, because it seems 

that ReCo constructions are constituents of some kind. In this respect they are pattern 

with ConCo constructions. 10 

3.2.8 Semantic bleaching 

In previous sections, I linked the selectional properties of the second verb to semantic 

‘bleaching’. In other words, in ConCo constructions where the second verb selected 

the subject, then the first verb became more ‘bleached’ and took on a more aspectual 

role. The same kind of bleaching does not occur in ReCo constructions. Verbs retain 

their lexical semantics. However, this is not to say that the verbs do not play an aspectual 

role; they clearly do. ReCo constructions are durative and imply intensity of 

activity. Thus, like ConCo they have an aspectual interpretation. 

9 (62b,c) are grammatical under an OCo reading, although they would be distinctly odd from a semantic 

point of view. 

10As shown in section (3.2), verbal particles can occur in Position B in a restricted fashion. This does not 

refute the generalization that XPs cannot intervene in Position B because it is not clear that English verbal 

particles are always independent XPs rather than being incorporated into the verb (Farrell 2005). This will 

be discussed more generally in section (4.2.2).


3.2.9 VP ellipsis 

The inability to elide part of the VP is a property of ConCo constructions (2.1.5). In 

the case of ReCo constructions, the VP must be elided as a unit; it is not possible to 

elide only part of the VP. However, since both verbs are identical, an ellipsis structure 

actually looks identical to a simplex form. This means that the VP-ellipsis test needs 

to be approached in a subtle way. The test I have developed relies on the unbounded 

Aktionsart of ReCo constructions. 

(63) a. Mary worked and worked at the project 

→ ‘Mary worked at the project intensively’ 

b. John worked and worked at the project. . . 

. . . and Mary worked and worked at it too 

‘Mary worked intensively’ 

Example (63a) is the basic ReCo example. Note that the characteristic intensive, 

durative reading is available. Example (63b) exhibits partial VP-deletion in a ReCo 

context. The supposed ellipsis site is marked by ∅. Note that the second conjunct is 

identical to a simplex (non-ReCo) clause and is thus not ill-formed. Importantly, however 

(63b) does not have the intensive action reading associated with (63a). What this 

means is that the purportedly elided constituent in (63b) cannot be a ReCo complement. 

In fact, the reading of the second conjunct is only compatible with a non-elision 

structure. Consequently, the ‘elision’ example is ungrammatical on a ReCo interpretation. 

Thus, partial VP-deletion cannot occur in ReCo contexts. 11 

3.2.10 Restrictions on subjects 

A major difference between ConCo and SceCo constructions is that the former do not 

place any restrictions on the selectional relationship between the subject and the lexical 

verb. In effect, the pseudo-coordinative verb is invisible to selectional requirements 

in ConCo but not in SceCo (section (2.1.3)). 

Similarly, ReCo constructions do not have any restrictions with respect to their 

subjects. For instance, they admit weather-verb expletives and inanimate subjects. 

Thus it seems, like for ConCo, that the subject-selectional properties of the predicate 

are not affected (2.1.3). 

(64) a. It rained all night 

b. It rained and rained all night 

(65) a. The tree stood on the ridge for more than 80 years 

b. The tree stood and stood on the ridge for more than 80 years 

11 This ellipsis test also confirms the results of section (3.2.8); the presence of the second verb contributes 

towards an aspectual meaning.


Of course, this is not particularly surprising since all the predicates in a ReCo 

construction are identical. Thus, unlike ConCo and SceCo where there is a non-local 

relationship between the lexical verb and the subject, in ReCo, the subject is always 

in a local relationship to the first verb, which appears to be lexical. For this reason, 

one needs to differentiate whether it is the first verb of the ReCo construction that 

selects the subject (in which case ReCo would pattern with SceCo) or whether it is the 

second verb that selects the subject (in which case ReCo would pattern with ConCo). 

Unfortunately, given that both verbs are identical it is not possible to tell directly which 

of these options is the correct one. 12 

3.2.11 Restrictions on which verbs can occur in ReCo constructions 

ReCo constructions are very productive. However, there are restrictions on which 

verbs can enter into this construction. 

(66) *John did and did something [Light verb] 

(67) *John will and will do something [Modal] 

(68) *John has and has done something [Auxiliary] 

(69) *John resembled and resembled his father [States] 

(70) *John won and won the race [Achievements] 

(71) *John ate and ate 46 hamburgers in only 2 hours [Accomplishments] 

(72) John walked and walked for hours [Activities] 

(73) John shot and shot at the rabbit 

‘John repeatedly shot at the rabbit’ [Serial Achievement] 

Two generalizations can be made from these data. Light verbs like do as well as 

modals and auxiliaries cannot occur in ReCo constructions. In other words, ReCo constructions 

are limited to lexical verbs. The second generalization is that only activity 

verbs can occur in these constructions, although some endpoint implying verbs can 

occur in ReCo constructions with serial or repetitive readings, i.e. they are construed 

as activities. The main point I am trying to make is that there is (i) a definable class 

of verbs entering into ReCo constructions (activity verbs) and (ii) there is a definable 

class of verbs which do not participate in this construction (modals, light verbs, states, 

achievements and accomplishments). This is also a property of pseudo-coordinative 

constructions generally (section 2.1.10). 

12 However, given that with respect to the semantic bleaching and VP-ellipsis tests ReCo patterns with 

ConCo, it is perhaps reasonable to assume that it is the second verb that selects the subject in ReCo constructions 

and that they thus pattern with ConCo.


3.2.12 Counter-expectational readings 

Pejorative and/or surprise readings do not seem to be characteristic of these constructions, 

although they are not incompatible with them. 

(74) a. To our amazement, John studied and studied for three days 

b. As we had arranged, John studied and studied for three days 

In these examples the counter-expectational force comes entirely from the topicalized 

elements. To my ear, an out-of-the-blue ReCo construction is very neutral with 

respect to this kind of reading. Thus, ReCo constructions do not have inherent counterexpectational 

readings associated with them. In this respect, they pattern with ConCo 

more generally, but not ConCo with go (section (2.1.12)). 

3.2.13 Phonological cues 

ReCo constructions permit the coordinating particle to be reduced to syllabic [n " ]. This 

is a general characteristic of pseudo-coordinative constructions (section (2.1.13)). 

(75) a. What did he read and read all day? 

b. What did he read [@n] he read all day 

c. What did he read [n " ] read all day? 

As was the case for ConCo, the first verb cannot be focussed in isolation. However, 

unlike ConCo, it is possible for both verbs to bear equal focus. This is probably 

because, unlike ConCo constructions, ReCo contexts do not require that the first verb 

be grammaticalized and functional; it is clearly a lexical verb with a lexical stress pattern. 

Importantly, however, the coordinator itself cannot be focussed. This is a general 

property of pseudo-coordination. 

(76) a. What did John read and READ all day? 

b. *What did he READ and read all day? 

c. *What did John read AND read all day? 

d. What did John READ and READ all day? 

These data demonstrate that ReCo are indeed pseudo-coordinative in nature and 

also support the intuition in section (2.1.13) that the inability of ConCo predicates to 

be stressed is a function of the fact that they are functional, grammaticalized elements.

Property Section OCo SceCo ConCo ReCo try 

Syntactic tests 

Non-ATB argument extraction (3.2.5) No 

Non-ATB adjunct extraction (3.2.5) No No 

XPs in Position B (3.2.7) (Some) No No No 

XPs in Position C (3.2.7) No No No Some (?) 

Partial VP-Ellipsis (3.2.9) No No 

Coordinator Substitution (3.2.2) No No No No 

Semantic tests 

Subject restricted by Verb A (3.2.10) No N.A. 

Semantic bleaching of Verb A (3.2.8) No No N.A. No 

Semantic subordination No N.A. i 

Distributivity (3.2.3) No No No No 

Wide-scope reading of quantifier (3.2.6 No No 

Restrictions on possible Verb A (3.2.11) No N.A. 

Inherent counter-expectational reading (3.2.12) No No (go) No No 

Morphological and Phonological tests 

Morphological Sameness (3.2.4) No N.A. 

Focus on Verb A (3.2.13) No (?) No No 

Focus on coordinator (3.2.13) No No No No 

i Semantic subordination in ReCo contexts cannot be tested. Since both verbs are the 

same, the commutativity of conjuncts is not at issue. 

Table 3.2: Properties of pseudo-coordinative types 

74 Reduplicative coordination constructions


3.2.14 Findings 

In this section I have systematically subjected ReCo constructions to the battery of 

tests developed in previous sections. The results of these are tabulated in figure 3.2 on 

the preceding page. 

Firstly, it is clear that ReCo is not OCo. This is indicated by the ability to extract 

arguments, quantifiers and some adjuncts, the restrictions on subjects, the inability 

of other XPs to occur in the second conjunct, the incompatibility with distributive 

elements, the Morphological Sameness Condition, phonological reduction and the fact 

that only a subclass of verbs can be coordinated in this way. 

Secondly, I would like to make the case that ReCo is a type of ConCo. The only 

way in which ReCo patterns with SceCo is the inability to extract manner adjuncts. 

However, the results of this test are undermined by the fact that quantifiers can freely 

raise yielding wide-scope readings. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the islandhood 

of ReCo and SceCo are not, in fact, triggered by the same factors, making 

the similarity superficial only. The remaining tests show that ReCo patterns after 

ConCo. These include the ban on subjects and XPs within the verbal string, the semantic 

bleaching effects, the inability to partially elide the VP and the wide-scope 

readings associated with quantifiers. 

3.3 Conclusion 

In summary, ReCo is an instance of ConCo. This lends some credence to the typology 

which as been developed insofar as ReCo constructions provide independent proof 

of the existence of a structure with the properties of ConCo. It is also important because 

some of the properties of ReCo may illuminate the mechanics of ConCo. This 

possibility is explored in the following chapters. 

With respect to pseudo-coordinative try, I have argued that it constitutes a separate 

type of pseudo-coordination from ReCo, ConCo and SceCo. Diagram 3.2 illustrates 

the resulting tableau of coordinative types explored in previous chapters. 

Figure 3.2: Pseudo-coordination in English 

Coordination 

✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵❵❵ 

✥✥ ✥✥ 

Ordinary Coordination Pseudo-coordination 

✥✥✥❵❵❵❵❵❵ 

✥ 

✥ 

SceCo 

SceCo 

ConCo 

✧❜❜ 

✧ ⎡ ⎤ 

go 

ReCo ⎣ sit ⎦ 

... 

try

76 Conclusion

Chapter 3 - LOT publications

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?